Obligatory: How can Valve make it fair for someone with an Xbox controller to fight against someone with a keyboard/mouse setup? I play shooters on both consoles and PCs, and the keyboard/mouse is far superior in terms of control and accuracy. I wouldn't want an Xbox player on my team if he has difficulty aiming. Would Valve have to modify TF2's gameplay to accommodate the shortcomings of the Xbox controller? (As in dumb the game down like EA did with C&C3 - another console/PC release)
Oh, and do PC players and console players really have some burning desire to play with one another? TFC public servers have plenty of trolls and idiots, but no where near as many as I encounter on Xbox live. Fighting with them on Halo is bad enough.
I own an X360, PS2, and PC so I can experience different forms of gaming. And at this point, my PC is still the best for shooter games.
PlanetSide had a great leveling system...
on
Rethinking the MMOG
·
· Score: 1
PlanetSide's numerous other gameplay problems notwithstanding, PS had a great leveling system.
It worked like this: you earned battleranks (BRs) for capturing bases and killing enemy soldiers and vehicles. The BR cap was set at 20 last time I played.
BRs allow you to purchase various equipment and vehicle certifications.
The only thing a higher level gives you is more versatility. A battlerank 20's chaingun is not more powerful than a battlerank 6's. In fact the only difference (on paper) between a level 1 and a level 20 is how many weapons/vehicles he's able to use with one character.
Contrast this with other MMOs that give high-ranking players uber weapons that are impossible to beat. Unless you invest tons of time into the game, there's simply no way low level players can stand toe-to-toe with high high levels players and their godly weapons.
Listen, I'm not a fan of Halliburton screwing over the American taxpayers. I'm also against their huge no-bid contracts.
But as Slate's "Explainer," well, explains, Halliburton "is still incorporated in Delaware and remains subject to U.S. law and taxes." The article goes on to say that Halliburton would have a hell of a time incorporating in Dubai, but moving its workforce overseas is not out of the question.
After all, 55% of the company's business comes from the Eastern hemisphere. This move makes perfect sense, given their long-term business plans.
PS: The company's defense component, KBR, is set to become its own company. Halliburton's new HQ should not affect KBR.
Others have pointed to Doom III's sales number, something like 1.5 million units, as proof of how pirates ruined the bottom line. Only 1.5 million units for one of the most anticipated games of '04!?! Balderdash!
Doom III was massively pirated, to be sure, but every pirate =/= a lost purchase. My theory is this: people pirated Doom III, realized it was complete and utter shit, and simply didn't buy it. That's what a certain person I know did...
In any event, online games are a sure-fire way to combat piracy, and a reasonable one at that. ET: Quake Wars looks amazing and I'll buy it the day it comes out.
But I can also pirate console games. It just takes a little more work.
Whoever first corrupted youth with that new fangled "written language" was probably stoned to death and thrown to the lions. So be thankful if the politicians just want to ban your new artistic medium:)
Too many FPS games get so caught up in their own little world that they forget about making the experience fun. I recently beat Doom III (three years late, I know) and one word best describes it: boring. Sure, the weapons and environments (Mars, hell) are damn awesome, but the actual gameplay is monotonous and contrived. I actually turned on God Mode just so I could beat the game faster...
Now look at Team Fortress Classic. No other online FPS is as fun and entertaining, for me anyway. And the game is almost 7 years old! TFC has no story, virtually no learning curve, no preset environment, and the graphics aren't that great. It just has balanced classes and some awesome maps (Dustbowl is one greatest FPS maps ever crafted). Red Team and Blue Team just kill each other amid a sea of gibs for no reason...and I love every second of it!
Games need to step back and realize that it's not all about production values and storytelling and graphics (though these things are important). It's about fun and entertainment, too.
And all it takes is 80 unhappy parents to get the ad pulled? That's 0.0003% of the total population. Someone out there will be offended no matter what airs on TV. What if a company used animals in their commercials and PETA & Co. called and complained? Will it only take 80 of them to get that ad pulled?
During the 2006 Emmys, Conan O'Brien was in a skit that featured a plane crash. Earlier that day, a plane actually crashed in Kentucky. By Australia's logic, Conan's skit would have to be pulled because hundreds - if not a few thousand - people from the Lexington area thought it was in bad taste.
Honestly, if there were thousands of angry calls, then we could talk. But even then the whole thing would still be stupid.
Every Vanguard preview indicates that it's the same old stuff we've seen for years - high fantasy, level grinding, questing. The screenshots look dull and uninspired. The plastic player models convey zero personality. In other words, the game will have a small fanbase but it's not going anywhere. And no, I haven't played the game because nothing about it sounds compelling. Why should I settle for a second-rate product when I have WoW, GW, or even EQII to choose from in the "fantasy/MMORPG/questing" genre?
And frankly, you need a damn good product to sway people away from WoW or whatever. You're asking them to give up their time investment and spend hundreds of hours in your gaming world. Or you could innovate and create an MMO for people like me who hate the current crop of MMOs:P
I read Vanguard's forums since early development and the devs had some awesome ideas. They just failed miserably in the execution.
As my friend said when I showed him some Vanguard screenshots/previews: "Don't they already have 5 games just like this?"
If the government was seriously interested in reducing the threat from terrorism, they would've come up with a comprehensive, and practical, plan for creating stability and peace in the Middle East. But that's simply not the case.
For example, the only thing the extremists hate more than the US and the West is Israel. Unfortunately, the Israeli/Palestinian peace process has never been on the administration's frontburner when compared to Iraq and Saudi Arabia policies. And speaking of Iraq, what better way to galvanize potential terrorists than by fulfilling Osama's message that the Infidels want to invade the holy lands? Not having a competent reconstruction plan or means of dealing with sectarian conflict doesn't help either. Then there's the perception that the US is ignoring diplomacy with Iran because President Bush wants war. Even if this claim is meritless, that is still how many people see it. All of this, coupled with deep-rooted societal issues, creates the conditions that foster terrorism.
New government agencies and stupid color-coded charts do jack shit to address the core issues. And by relying on bureaucrats, as the author says, we're setting ourselves up for disaster. The government needs to stop with the feel-good, expensive, worthless Homeland Security measures and really tackle the issue at its source...
Any legislation that controls the Internet will probably deter small-time hackers and the like. But is dealing with fewer script kiddies and spam really worth giving up more of our privacy?
There's the million-dollar phrase. I wonder if these EU legislators really understand how the Internet works. Those who wish to use emails, telephones, etc. for nefarious purposes will find a work-around. In the end, this legislation will only punish the grandmothers, kids, e-novices, and clueless users who simply tried to sign up for a junk email account. Joe Terrorist will be using encrypted communications and the like - stuff that already requires a team of specialists to track. So even if this legislation passes, you'll still need special enforcement units to track the real bad guys - exactly where we are now. Sounds like a lot of time, money, and hassle for a false sense of security.
Perhaps. I think that plastering billboards in your game is lazy and unimaginative. Rainbow Six: Vegas had an excellent in-game ad. If you shoot a can of Axe bodyspray, a blooper reel will start playing picture-in-picture. People read about this online and went back to find the Axe. I certainly like these Easter eggs more than posters decorating walls. At least I'm not forced to watch Axe-sponsored bloopers unless I want to.
The most recent CSI game also had the player lift fingerprints from a Visa card found in some guy's wallet. Again, this blends in nicely with the game.
But then you have the idiots at SOE who decide to stick Duece Biggalo movie ads in PlanetSide's main bases. Yeah, that makes total sense on an isolated planet several centuries in the future.
And Google can only go so far in "doing ads right" - after all, the devs decide where the ads are placed.
My local schoolboard faced a similar reversal after the ultra-conservative members tried pushing I.D. into our classrooms. The public hearing on the matter was a hoot though. The district's science instructors, a few PhDs, and even some students all went on record as saying the whole thing was a dumb idea. Oh, and the fiscal conservatives were outraged to learn that the district spent $10,000+ on legal fees.
The next schoolboard election saw a higher voter turnout and the pro-ID board members were ousted, replaced by moderates.
All this in a county that votes 65% Republican. If only voters had paid attention during the first election hehe
Agreed, but the meat of the game still has to be fun.
A game could have the most amazing boss fight of all time and an awesome ending, but if everything before that point is terribly dull, then I'm not interested in playing.
The challenge is creating a game that's fun throughout - even if you're just killing rats or dumb-dumb orcs at the beginning. And let's face it: many game studios simply lack the talent and insight to make such tasks fun. I think anyone can create a good boss fight, but it takes real talent to make the in between stuff (town exploration, traveling, sidequesting) fun and engaging.
You don't need FedEx quests, level grinding, and fairytales to have an MMO. All you need are lots of players interacting online. Yet for some reason the major studios don't get this. They feel that every MMO needs dumbassed level grinding, quests, etc. The same stuff we've seen over and over. There's no reason why a game as simple as Team Fortress Classic couldn't be an MMO.
WoW dominates the "traditional" MMO market right now. It's foolish to directly compete with WoW unless you have a strong IP, huge marketing budget, and gameplay that makes players to give up their WoW timesink for your timesink. Most startup MMO companies lack at least two of those things...
But you have a chance if you create an online game that appeals to other gamers. What do Half-Life 2, Halo, and Gears of War have in common? They're shooter games and they're best-sellers, yet no one has created a successful FPS MMO. That market is a potential goldmine...as long as devs steer clear of the traditional MMO crap.
Imagine a MMOFPS similar to Guild Wars. No monthly fee, but frequently-released expansions. There would be a co-op campaign where you and your party fight the baddies and advance through the game's storyline, all while gaining access to new weapons/skills. Add in some arenas for on-the-fly PvP combat, territorial conquest zones, and a some sort of guild structure. Now you've got yourself a game. Simplified, I know, but a competent studio could easily pull that off.
Not every bug for every game will be discovered during internal testing (and MS's buggy reputation doesn't help). Frankly, I'm glad that these gamers are having these problems so that by the time I upgrade in a year, there will be fixes or work-arounds.
On a related note: Vista's promise to reinvent gaming seems to be faltering out of the gate. Beside the problems listed in the article, MS isn't doing a good job of telling casual gamers what sort of videocards or hardware they'll need to effectively take advantage of DX10. Then you have contradictory reports from gaming studios that DX10 doesn't mean anything - yet. None of this is helping to make PC gaming "easier" for the masses. In fact it's complicating things.
If YouTube decides that a video is offensive to a segment of its users, then it has every right to remove the video. Expecting free speech protection from a private entitity is a bit absurd. The local mall would throw my ass on the street if I stood inside protesting leather products.
The lesson here? Host your videos somewhere else, provide your own video hosting service, or deal with YouTube's practices.
The author only mentions MMOs in the last paragraph. He doesn't even list what MMOs he likes, let alone the qualities of a successful sandbox MMO. In fact the article is best summed up as "Why I think The Sims is better than Grand Theft Auto."
It's interesting that he should mention The Sims, MMOs, and sandbox gameplay in the same article. The Sims Online - a game EA has practically shoved under the rug - was a miserable failure, despite a preexisting Sims fanbase and mainstream coverage from the likes of TIME. Don't get me wrong: I like sandbox games as much as the author. But The Sims Online was an uninspired grindfest that required you to perform insultingly repetitive tasks to "level up" your Sim. EA might've finally changed this since I quit, though I doubt it.
I find the popular MMOs (WoW, Guild Wars) to be incredibly restrictive and linear. Ya, I can wonder around a gameworld, but I can barely impact how it functions or really do what I want.
Yeah, how often are those guys on public servers - ya know the things the majority of us play on? I'm not discounting their skill, but I can usually hold my own on pub servers, at least to the point where I'm having fun. And I'm still not interested in watching them play when I can be playing the game myself.
With football, baseball, hockey, etc., I either lack the talent, equipment, playing area, or teammates to frequently play those sports. That's not to say that people only watch these sports because they themselves cannot play them, but imagine if everyone had access to an NFL arena and a half-decent team...and you were 15 years younger with a solid throwing arm. Now, would you rather watch or play football?
Why would I want to sit around watching other people play Counter-Strike when I can go into the other room, fire up the PC, and play the game myself? I can watch the best players duke it out after I've been killed and sent to spectator mode. I imagine gamers would initially be the largest audience for these things...and gamers want to play games.
Gaming *can* be a spectator sport; I love watching my friends play games that I suck at:) But we're all in the same room, drinking and cursing when we lose a level. It just wouldn't be the same if I watched the match on television from hundreds of miles away.
Folding this bill into a larger "law and order" agenda makes it more difficult for people to criticize it; "what, you against law and order, you filthy terrorist?"
If similar bills had no chance in a Republican-controlled Congress, does it really have a chance now? Doubtful, especially since the Democrats have a comfortable majority in the House.
Besides, I'm not a fan of impractical laws that are extraordinarily difficult to enforce. If this bill became law, do you think certain users would create scripts that visit hundreds of thousands of sites, just to clog the log books?
Will the PS3 have a rich mod community that's constantly releasing fixes/updates/new content for Oblivion? Probably not. That alone makes me want to stick with the PC version...
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory: How can Valve make it fair for someone with an Xbox controller to fight against someone with a keyboard/mouse setup? I play shooters on both consoles and PCs, and the keyboard/mouse is far superior in terms of control and accuracy. I wouldn't want an Xbox player on my team if he has difficulty aiming. Would Valve have to modify TF2's gameplay to accommodate the shortcomings of the Xbox controller? (As in dumb the game down like EA did with C&C3 - another console/PC release)
Oh, and do PC players and console players really have some burning desire to play with one another? TFC public servers have plenty of trolls and idiots, but no where near as many as I encounter on Xbox live. Fighting with them on Halo is bad enough.
I own an X360, PS2, and PC so I can experience different forms of gaming. And at this point, my PC is still the best for shooter games.
PlanetSide's numerous other gameplay problems notwithstanding, PS had a great leveling system.
It worked like this: you earned battleranks (BRs) for capturing bases and killing enemy soldiers and vehicles. The BR cap was set at 20 last time I played.
BRs allow you to purchase various equipment and vehicle certifications.
The only thing a higher level gives you is more versatility. A battlerank 20's chaingun is not more powerful than a battlerank 6's. In fact the only difference (on paper) between a level 1 and a level 20 is how many weapons/vehicles he's able to use with one character.
Contrast this with other MMOs that give high-ranking players uber weapons that are impossible to beat. Unless you invest tons of time into the game, there's simply no way low level players can stand toe-to-toe with high high levels players and their godly weapons.
Listen, I'm not a fan of Halliburton screwing over the American taxpayers. I'm also against their huge no-bid contracts.
But as Slate's "Explainer," well, explains, Halliburton "is still incorporated in Delaware and remains subject to U.S. law and taxes." The article goes on to say that Halliburton would have a hell of a time incorporating in Dubai, but moving its workforce overseas is not out of the question.
After all, 55% of the company's business comes from the Eastern hemisphere. This move makes perfect sense, given their long-term business plans.
PS: The company's defense component, KBR, is set to become its own company. Halliburton's new HQ should not affect KBR.
http://www.slate.com/id/2161652/fr/rss/
Others have pointed to Doom III's sales number, something like 1.5 million units, as proof of how pirates ruined the bottom line. Only 1.5 million units for one of the most anticipated games of '04!?! Balderdash!
Doom III was massively pirated, to be sure, but every pirate =/= a lost purchase. My theory is this: people pirated Doom III, realized it was complete and utter shit, and simply didn't buy it. That's what a certain person I know did...
In any event, online games are a sure-fire way to combat piracy, and a reasonable one at that. ET: Quake Wars looks amazing and I'll buy it the day it comes out.
But I can also pirate console games. It just takes a little more work.
Whoever first corrupted youth with that new fangled "written language" was probably stoned to death and thrown to the lions. So be thankful if the politicians just want to ban your new artistic medium :)
Too many FPS games get so caught up in their own little world that they forget about making the experience fun. I recently beat Doom III (three years late, I know) and one word best describes it: boring. Sure, the weapons and environments (Mars, hell) are damn awesome, but the actual gameplay is monotonous and contrived. I actually turned on God Mode just so I could beat the game faster...
Now look at Team Fortress Classic. No other online FPS is as fun and entertaining, for me anyway. And the game is almost 7 years old! TFC has no story, virtually no learning curve, no preset environment, and the graphics aren't that great. It just has balanced classes and some awesome maps (Dustbowl is one greatest FPS maps ever crafted). Red Team and Blue Team just kill each other amid a sea of gibs for no reason...and I love every second of it!
Games need to step back and realize that it's not all about production values and storytelling and graphics (though these things are important). It's about fun and entertainment, too.
And all it takes is 80 unhappy parents to get the ad pulled? That's 0.0003% of the total population. Someone out there will be offended no matter what airs on TV. What if a company used animals in their commercials and PETA & Co. called and complained? Will it only take 80 of them to get that ad pulled?
During the 2006 Emmys, Conan O'Brien was in a skit that featured a plane crash. Earlier that day, a plane actually crashed in Kentucky. By Australia's logic, Conan's skit would have to be pulled because hundreds - if not a few thousand - people from the Lexington area thought it was in bad taste.
Honestly, if there were thousands of angry calls, then we could talk. But even then the whole thing would still be stupid.
Every Vanguard preview indicates that it's the same old stuff we've seen for years - high fantasy, level grinding, questing. The screenshots look dull and uninspired. The plastic player models convey zero personality. In other words, the game will have a small fanbase but it's not going anywhere. And no, I haven't played the game because nothing about it sounds compelling. Why should I settle for a second-rate product when I have WoW, GW, or even EQII to choose from in the "fantasy/MMORPG/questing" genre? And frankly, you need a damn good product to sway people away from WoW or whatever. You're asking them to give up their time investment and spend hundreds of hours in your gaming world. Or you could innovate and create an MMO for people like me who hate the current crop of MMOs :P
I read Vanguard's forums since early development and the devs had some awesome ideas. They just failed miserably in the execution.
As my friend said when I showed him some Vanguard screenshots/previews: "Don't they already have 5 games just like this?"
"So far, more than 700 people have enlisted as independent Citizenr sales agents -- what the company calls 'ecopenuers' "
The boldface buzzword is a warning sign: stay away, stay very far away.
If the government was seriously interested in reducing the threat from terrorism, they would've come up with a comprehensive, and practical, plan for creating stability and peace in the Middle East. But that's simply not the case. For example, the only thing the extremists hate more than the US and the West is Israel. Unfortunately, the Israeli/Palestinian peace process has never been on the administration's frontburner when compared to Iraq and Saudi Arabia policies. And speaking of Iraq, what better way to galvanize potential terrorists than by fulfilling Osama's message that the Infidels want to invade the holy lands? Not having a competent reconstruction plan or means of dealing with sectarian conflict doesn't help either. Then there's the perception that the US is ignoring diplomacy with Iran because President Bush wants war. Even if this claim is meritless, that is still how many people see it. All of this, coupled with deep-rooted societal issues, creates the conditions that foster terrorism. New government agencies and stupid color-coded charts do jack shit to address the core issues. And by relying on bureaucrats, as the author says, we're setting ourselves up for disaster. The government needs to stop with the feel-good, expensive, worthless Homeland Security measures and really tackle the issue at its source...
Any legislation that controls the Internet will probably deter small-time hackers and the like. But is dealing with fewer script kiddies and spam really worth giving up more of our privacy?
There's the million-dollar phrase. I wonder if these EU legislators really understand how the Internet works. Those who wish to use emails, telephones, etc. for nefarious purposes will find a work-around. In the end, this legislation will only punish the grandmothers, kids, e-novices, and clueless users who simply tried to sign up for a junk email account. Joe Terrorist will be using encrypted communications and the like - stuff that already requires a team of specialists to track. So even if this legislation passes, you'll still need special enforcement units to track the real bad guys - exactly where we are now. Sounds like a lot of time, money, and hassle for a false sense of security.
Remember that MSN.com is the second most visited website. This will draw some search traffic.
c s.htm
Here's the breakdown:
Google - 43.7%
Yahoo - 28.8%
MSN - 12.8%
http://seo.zunch.com/search_engine_usage_statisti
While MSN trails Yahoo and Google, it's still in the top three. Other websites rank the engines in the same order, but the percentages slightly vary.
Perhaps. I think that plastering billboards in your game is lazy and unimaginative. Rainbow Six: Vegas had an excellent in-game ad. If you shoot a can of Axe bodyspray, a blooper reel will start playing picture-in-picture. People read about this online and went back to find the Axe. I certainly like these Easter eggs more than posters decorating walls. At least I'm not forced to watch Axe-sponsored bloopers unless I want to.
The most recent CSI game also had the player lift fingerprints from a Visa card found in some guy's wallet. Again, this blends in nicely with the game.
But then you have the idiots at SOE who decide to stick Duece Biggalo movie ads in PlanetSide's main bases. Yeah, that makes total sense on an isolated planet several centuries in the future.
And Google can only go so far in "doing ads right" - after all, the devs decide where the ads are placed.
My local schoolboard faced a similar reversal after the ultra-conservative members tried pushing I.D. into our classrooms. The public hearing on the matter was a hoot though. The district's science instructors, a few PhDs, and even some students all went on record as saying the whole thing was a dumb idea. Oh, and the fiscal conservatives were outraged to learn that the district spent $10,000+ on legal fees.
The next schoolboard election saw a higher voter turnout and the pro-ID board members were ousted, replaced by moderates.
All this in a county that votes 65% Republican. If only voters had paid attention during the first election hehe
Agreed, but the meat of the game still has to be fun.
A game could have the most amazing boss fight of all time and an awesome ending, but if everything before that point is terribly dull, then I'm not interested in playing.
The challenge is creating a game that's fun throughout - even if you're just killing rats or dumb-dumb orcs at the beginning. And let's face it: many game studios simply lack the talent and insight to make such tasks fun. I think anyone can create a good boss fight, but it takes real talent to make the in between stuff (town exploration, traveling, sidequesting) fun and engaging.
You don't need FedEx quests, level grinding, and fairytales to have an MMO. All you need are lots of players interacting online. Yet for some reason the major studios don't get this. They feel that every MMO needs dumbassed level grinding, quests, etc. The same stuff we've seen over and over. There's no reason why a game as simple as Team Fortress Classic couldn't be an MMO.
WoW dominates the "traditional" MMO market right now. It's foolish to directly compete with WoW unless you have a strong IP, huge marketing budget, and gameplay that makes players to give up their WoW timesink for your timesink. Most startup MMO companies lack at least two of those things...
But you have a chance if you create an online game that appeals to other gamers. What do Half-Life 2, Halo, and Gears of War have in common? They're shooter games and they're best-sellers, yet no one has created a successful FPS MMO. That market is a potential goldmine...as long as devs steer clear of the traditional MMO crap.
Imagine a MMOFPS similar to Guild Wars. No monthly fee, but frequently-released expansions. There would be a co-op campaign where you and your party fight the baddies and advance through the game's storyline, all while gaining access to new weapons/skills. Add in some arenas for on-the-fly PvP combat, territorial conquest zones, and a some sort of guild structure. Now you've got yourself a game. Simplified, I know, but a competent studio could easily pull that off.
Not every bug for every game will be discovered during internal testing (and MS's buggy reputation doesn't help). Frankly, I'm glad that these gamers are having these problems so that by the time I upgrade in a year, there will be fixes or work-arounds.
On a related note: Vista's promise to reinvent gaming seems to be faltering out of the gate. Beside the problems listed in the article, MS isn't doing a good job of telling casual gamers what sort of videocards or hardware they'll need to effectively take advantage of DX10. Then you have contradictory reports from gaming studios that DX10 doesn't mean anything - yet. None of this is helping to make PC gaming "easier" for the masses. In fact it's complicating things.
Slate currently has an "Obama Messiah Watch" column that chronicles the media's excessive praise of the would-be-president.
http://www.slate.com/id/2159502/?nav=navoa
If YouTube decides that a video is offensive to a segment of its users, then it has every right to remove the video. Expecting free speech protection from a private entitity is a bit absurd. The local mall would throw my ass on the street if I stood inside protesting leather products.
The lesson here? Host your videos somewhere else, provide your own video hosting service, or deal with YouTube's practices.
The author only mentions MMOs in the last paragraph. He doesn't even list what MMOs he likes, let alone the qualities of a successful sandbox MMO. In fact the article is best summed up as "Why I think The Sims is better than Grand Theft Auto."
It's interesting that he should mention The Sims, MMOs, and sandbox gameplay in the same article. The Sims Online - a game EA has practically shoved under the rug - was a miserable failure, despite a preexisting Sims fanbase and mainstream coverage from the likes of TIME. Don't get me wrong: I like sandbox games as much as the author. But The Sims Online was an uninspired grindfest that required you to perform insultingly repetitive tasks to "level up" your Sim. EA might've finally changed this since I quit, though I doubt it.
I find the popular MMOs (WoW, Guild Wars) to be incredibly restrictive and linear. Ya, I can wonder around a gameworld, but I can barely impact how it functions or really do what I want.
Yeah, how often are those guys on public servers - ya know the things the majority of us play on? I'm not discounting their skill, but I can usually hold my own on pub servers, at least to the point where I'm having fun. And I'm still not interested in watching them play when I can be playing the game myself.
With football, baseball, hockey, etc., I either lack the talent, equipment, playing area, or teammates to frequently play those sports. That's not to say that people only watch these sports because they themselves cannot play them, but imagine if everyone had access to an NFL arena and a half-decent team...and you were 15 years younger with a solid throwing arm. Now, would you rather watch or play football?
:) But we're all in the same room, drinking and cursing when we lose a level. It just wouldn't be the same if I watched the match on television from hundreds of miles away.
Why would I want to sit around watching other people play Counter-Strike when I can go into the other room, fire up the PC, and play the game myself? I can watch the best players duke it out after I've been killed and sent to spectator mode. I imagine gamers would initially be the largest audience for these things...and gamers want to play games.
Gaming *can* be a spectator sport; I love watching my friends play games that I suck at
Folding this bill into a larger "law and order" agenda makes it more difficult for people to criticize it; "what, you against law and order, you filthy terrorist?"
If similar bills had no chance in a Republican-controlled Congress, does it really have a chance now? Doubtful, especially since the Democrats have a comfortable majority in the House.
Besides, I'm not a fan of impractical laws that are extraordinarily difficult to enforce. If this bill became law, do you think certain users would create scripts that visit hundreds of thousands of sites, just to clog the log books?
Will the PS3 have a rich mod community that's constantly releasing fixes/updates/new content for Oblivion? Probably not. That alone makes me want to stick with the PC version...